Election protocol lapses dangerous

Cambridge Times

A Superior Court judge set aside the election results in Etobicoke where a Conservative won by 26 votes. It was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Seven judges decided this case (not the usual nine because there was a vacancy on the bench until recently). The court split: four judges restored the election result; three judges, including the chief justice, sided with the Superior Court judge who initially heard the case and overturned the election result. The logic of the majority is that it is only irregularities which allow a person to vote who had no right to do so that should be considered.

So, for example, it doesn’t matter that the person who vouched for a voter who didn’t have identification was not on the list of electors for the same polling division, even though the Elections Act says they must be.

Likewise, the majority says it doesn’t matter that in two instances one person vouched for more than one voter, even though the Act says you can only vouch once in any given election.

The minority says that these and numerous other breaches of the Act are not trivial and the minority decision implies that these safeguards exist for a valid purpose. Allowing votes to be cast contrary to the procedural safeguards is not fair and can lead to uncertainty.

The majority has a disclaimer early in its reasons that their decision will not lead to a wholesale disregard for the technical requirements of the Act: “In recognizing that mistakes are inevitable, this court does not condone any relaxation of training and procedures”.

But what about future election day officials who methodically breach procedures, despite the best intentions and skills of those who may train them, because they know the Supreme Court has condoned the exact same practices here?

There comes a point where the accumulation of so many different lapses in protocol creates a general discomfort with the entire process. I think that point was reached here, even though cogent explanations may exist for particular lapses, as was argued by the majority. Obviously, the minority felt this accumulation of lapses to be beyond acceptable as well.

The majority says it’s a serious thing to overturn an election result, “annulling an election would disenfranchise...every elector who voted in the riding”.

And, “The procedural safeguards in the Act are important; however, they should not be treated as ends in themselves. Rather, they should be treated as a means of ensuring that only those who have the right to vote may do so”.

True, but I wouldn’t be surprised if in our newly polarized world of federal politics this decision loosens the degree of control which Elections Canada has formerly managed to exercise over the electoral process. There were just too many procedures not honoured in Etobicoke which have now been shown by the Supreme Court not to matter when it comes right down to it.